Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Former Staff Rules

  • Appendix B
  • Chapter IV
  • Chapter IX
  • Chapter VII
  • Chapter X
  • Chapter XI
  • Rule 1.2(h)
  • Rule 10.2
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
  • Rule 10.3(a)
  • Rule 10.4(c)
  • Rule 10.4b
  • Rule 101.1
  • Rule 101.2(2)
  • Rule 101.2(a)
  • Rule 101.2(b)
  • Rule 101.2(c)
  • Rule 101.2(d)
  • Rule 101.2(g)
  • Rule 101.2(h)
  • Rule 101.4(a)
  • Rule 103.13
  • Rule 103.20
  • Rule 103.21(a)
  • Rule 103.24
  • Rule 103.24(a)
  • Rule 103.7(d)(ii)
  • Rule 103.9
  • Rule 103.9(a)
  • Rule 104.1
  • Rule 104.10
  • Rule 104.10(a)
  • Rule 104.12
  • Rule 104.12(a)
  • Rule 104.12(b)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(i)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
  • Rule 104.13
  • Rule 104.13(a)
  • Rule 104.13(c)
  • Rule 104.14
  • Rule 104.14(a)(i)
  • Rule 104.14(h)(i)
  • Rule 104.15
  • Rule 104.15(b)(i)
  • Rule 104.3
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 104.4(e)
  • Rule 104.6
  • Rule 104.6(b)
  • Rule 104.7
  • Rule 104.7(a)
  • Rule 104.8
  • Rule 105
  • Rule 105.1(b)
  • Rule 105.1(b)(iii)
  • Rule 105.1(c)
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 105.2(a)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(iii)b
  • Rule 105.3
  • Rule 105.3(d)
  • Rule 105.3(d)(iii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(a)
  • Rule 106.2(c)
  • Rule 106.2(g)
  • Rule 106.6
  • Rule 107
  • Rule 107.1
  • Rule 107.21
  • Rule 107.21(h)
  • Rule 107.27
  • Rule 107.28
  • Rule 107.28(c)
  • Rule 107.4(b)
  • Rule 107.6
  • Rule 108.1
  • Rule 108.2
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.1(b)
  • Rule 109.1(c)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(i)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(ii)(a)
  • Rule 109.15
  • Rule 109.3
  • Rule 109.5(h)
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(a)
  • Rule 109.8
  • Rule 11.2
  • Rule 11.2(c)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.2(a)
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 110.3(a)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(i)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(iv)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(viii)
  • Rule 110.3(b)
  • Rule 110.3(b)(i)
  • Rule 110.3(vii)
  • Rule 110.4
  • Rule 110.4(a)
  • Rule 110.4(c)
  • Rule 110.7
  • Rule 110.7(b)
  • Rule 111
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(a)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(f)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)(ii)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 111.2(c)
  • Rule 111.2(c)(iii)
  • Rule 111.2(e)
  • Rule 111.2(f)
  • Rule 111.2(p)
  • Rule 111.2(q)
  • Rule 111.4(b)
  • Rule 112.2
  • Rule 112.2(a)
  • Rule 112.2(b)
  • Rule 112.2(f)
  • Rule 112.3
  • Rule 112.7
  • Rule 200.2(b)
  • Rule 204.3
  • Rule 204.3(d)
  • Rule 205.3(a)(iii)
  • Rule 208.5(a)
  • Rule 209.2(a)
  • Rule 209.2(c)
  • Rule 209.5
  • Rule 3
  • Rule 3.13(a)(iii)
  • Rule 3.17(c)(ii)
  • Rule 301.1
  • Rule 301.3
  • Rule 301.3(d)
  • Rule 301.3(q)(ii)
  • Rule 301.4
  • Rule 304.1
  • Rule 304.3
  • Rule 304.4
  • Rule 304.4(a)
  • Rule 304.4(b)
  • Rule 304(a)
  • Rule 309.2
  • Rule 309.3
  • Rule 309.4
  • Rule 309.5(a)
  • Rule 309.5(b)
  • Rule 310.1
  • Rule 310.1(e)(ii)
  • Rule 310.1(e)(iv)
  • Rule 311.1
  • Rule 312.6
  • Rule 4.17
  • Rule 4.4(b)
  • Rule 5.3
    • Showing 41 - 50 of 276
    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-108, Ajdini et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had consistently held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-105, Fuentes

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-271, Cremades

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-270, Marshall

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-260, Rahman

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from extending the deadline for...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-247, Mushema

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-246, Mwamsaku

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-237, Bagula

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-225, Scott

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...